DART+ (DART Expansion)

Zebra3

kdevitt wrote: »

I think most locals are happy for the level crossing to be upgraded

You think? So you don't know?

Define local? Where's the cut off distance to be defined as a local on this matter?

All of these "locals" are happy for what type of upgrade to the LC?

MJohnston

donvito99 wrote: »

Well it's the NTA running Bus Connects and Dart+.

And with the new bridge, wouldn't the bus just run over that rather than hitting a dead end former level crossing?

The Clonsilla level crossing they're referring to is 2km away from Coolmine level crossing where the topic has been focused for a while.

If the L52 that is currently planned to use Clonsilla level crossing is rerouted, it will be via the Diswellstown Road bridge.

kdevitt

Zebra3 wrote: »

You think? So you don't know?

Define local? Where's the cut off distance to be defined as a local on this matter?

All of these "locals" are happy for what type of upgrade to the LC?

Because that's whats come up through the various residents committees dealing with it.

Feel free to engage with your local TD's like we did if you feel someones voice as a "local" isn't being heard though.

IE 222

kdevitt wrote: »

Bus Connects has the Leixlip - Blanch route passing over the Clonsilla level crossing, which is being closed off - so I'm not sure there's been a whole lot of communication between Dublin Bus and Irish Rail here.

As a local, who lives in Coolmine, the suggested approach is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. The suggested bridge is 9 metres high on the Stationcourt side, and runs 5 metres from the houses in Kirkpatrick and directly in front of the Stationcourt apartments. Riverwood is already 3m below track level, resulting in an effective 12m high bridge into their cul de sac. Any bridge here runs contrary the the Fingal development plan where it was stated a bridge was not to be built at this point.

Regardless of whether you think people should have to put up with a bridge outside their house, the exit point for the road is one of the worst junctions in the areas and is currently set to allow 4 cars exit - which causes considerable traffic as it is. Increasing this will just exacerbate existing traffic problems in the area.

I think most locals are happy for the level crossing to be upgraded and to be closed at peak times if needs be. That should be the first step, if there are massive issues as a result, then IR should look into an approach which doesn't involve turning two cul de sacs into a main road.

That's because its planned to have the bus route running before the closure of the crossing. The bus will be rerouted and I think this goes against the narrative that's trying to be pulled here as it shows that everything is on the table and out in the open, there is no hidden or secret bus routes that are suddenly going to appear.

I don't think anyone is denying the fact there wont be any effect on locals if the bridge is built. The bridge been purposed is to REPLACE the crossing as to not leave the locals "stranded". If locals are willing to sacrifice road access across the railway to avoid the bridge then I believe that's a win for everyone involved.

Zebra3

kdevitt wrote: »

Because that's whats come up through the various residents committees dealing with it.

Feel free to engage with your local TD's like we did if you feel someones voice as a "local" isn't being heard though.

Residents Associations tend to be utter abominations.

The committee find something to kick up about or one or two people complain, and regardless of what most locals think, the decision is already made.

I posted on here before about local RA who were bitterly opposed to a pub being built on some nearby wasteland. The opposition to the pub was sent out to people in the area without any consultation.

The pub got built and the RA now hold their AGMs in it.

D15er

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I think a lot of people are countering your comment regarding people not wanting a bus ratting by their window by defending the design allowing for buses or showing that there are no planned bus routes along here.

Lets for a moment assume that the issue is not buses, but vehicular traffic along this route in general (Which I imagine was what you originally wanted to express?)

They wouldn't be rattling past anyone's bedroom window, as, having looked along the route on both sides on street-view, no houses directly back on to the actual proposed corridor, on one side there being a stepped back street between the houses and the corridor, on the other just a road with no houses on it directly at all.

In fact it almost looks as if they were intentionally designed that way to provide a corridor for a potential overbridge between them at some point in the future.

These sorts of corridors are quite common, A huge green space exists in my estate because a bypass was planned to go in there a few decades ago, which never ended up happening (at least in that exact location).

No, and this is an important point.

The green space on the north side of the canal was originally part of the same land that became Stationcourt Apartments. It was part of the planning permission that this land would be landscaped and made public open space. Without the creation of the green space, the apartments would not have gone ahead.

So the County Council thought it was important to ensure this green space was put in place when planning permission was granted.

Now IE want to build a road over this green space. That is the problem when you have different state bodies with differing powers I guess, but can you see why the residents would be annoyed? Their green space is gone and replaced with a busy road? I don't think anyone would roll over and just accept that.

Edit: I don't know the history of the landing of the bridge on the south side but I'd be shocked if IE had done any forward planning like what you're suggesting. That sort of foresight is just not in their DNA.

IE 222

kdevitt wrote: »

Because that's whats come up through the various residents committees dealing with it.

Feel free to engage with your local TD's like we did if you feel someones voice as a "local" isn't being heard though.

So can you shed some light on the drop lock proposal?

Fiddle Castro

IE 222 wrote: »

So can you shed some light on the drop lock proposal?

As far as I can see, this is just something Paul Donnelly has come up with. I can't find any details.

kdevitt

IE 222 wrote: »

So can you shed some light on the drop lock proposal?

None, it sounds like nonsense.

liamog

kdevitt wrote: »

None, it sounds like nonsense.

It's not complete nonsense, it was evaluated as one of the options, it didn't even make it to round 2 of the preliminary route options.
4 options made it to phase 2, Option 1, 3, 4 and 6



https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/8b669bab-7b1c-4ef6-9667-d2494faae813/Preliminary-Options-Selection-Report_Main-Report.pdf

IE 222

D15er wrote: »

Now IE want to build a road over this green space. That is the problem when you have different state bodies with differing powers I guess, but can you see why the residents would be annoyed? Their green space is gone and replaced with a busy road? I don't think anyone would roll over and just accept that.

Edit: I don't know the history of the landing of the bridge on the south side but I'd be shocked if IE had done any forward planning like what you're suggesting. That sort of foresight is just not in their DNA.

Again it's not a case that IE have just pulled this idea out their arse. It's a team of professional engineers from world renowned companies such as Jacob's Engineering who've done extensive studies to create and design these plans. I find it somewhat odd that someone who hasn't looked into the full details whilst adding their own narrative which includes secret bus routes emerging ferrying 10s of thousands of people to be calling it flawed.

D15er

IE 222 wrote: »

Again it's not a case that IE have just pulled this idea out their arse. It's a team of professional engineers from world renowned companies such as Jacob's Engineering who've done extensive studies to create and design these plans. I find it somewhat odd that someone who hasn't looked into the full details whilst adding their own narrative which includes secret bus routes emerging ferrying 10s of thousands of people to be calling it flawed.

I didn't say they pulled it out of their arse.

They pulled it out of a drawer where it had been sitting since 2011.

But the suggestion was that the land had always been earmarked for this bridge. That is not true.

liamog

D15er wrote: »

But the suggestion was that the land had always been earmarked for this bridge. That is not true.

There wouldn't be an objective to not build a bridge, unless it made sense to build a bridge there. Do you think the engineers employed by Irish Rail coincidentally found some empty land either side of the railway.

Sam Russell

liamog wrote: »

There wouldn't be an objective to not build a bridge, unless it made sense to build a bridge there. Do you think the engineers employed by Irish Rail coincidentally found some empty land either side of the railway.

Well that is exactly what they did with the Merrion Gates replacement bridge. here were two car parks either side of the railway which were just right for the road.

D15er

liamog wrote: »

There wouldn't be an objective to not build a bridge, unless it made sense to build a bridge there. Do you think the engineers employed by Irish Rail coincidentally found some empty land either side of the railway.

That is exactly what they did. Scroll up for details.

riddlinrussell

D15er wrote: »

I didn't say they pulled it out of their arse.

They pulled it out of a drawer where it had been sitting since 2011.

But the suggestion was that the land had always been earmarked for this bridge. That is not true.

I apologise for making that assumption, I based it entirely on the character of the streets in question, regardless of it being planned that way they are remarkably well suited for such a scheme, although I fully grasp why residents would be incensed if it was supposed to be a landscaped communal space.

I would propose that the LC be closed, and the Pedestrian and cycle link be made, as the best solution for both parties.

I think the alternative would be a half assed solution that doesn't fully close the LC, slowing the frequency of trains, while effectively never being open for cars due to a need to minimise the risk of crossing strikes having a disastrous impact on high frequency services.

Zebra3

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I apologise for making that assumption, I based it entirely on the character of the streets in question, regardless of it being planned that way they are remarkably well suited for such a scheme, although I fully grasp why residents would be incensed if it was supposed to be a landscaped communal space.

I would propose that the LC be closed, and the Pedestrian and cycle link be made, as the best solution for both parties.

I think the alternative would be a half assed solution that doesn't fully close the LC, slowing the frequency of trains, while effectively never being open for cars due to a need to minimise the risk of crossing strikes having a disastrous impact on high frequency services.

+1 on all of this with residents given the option to look at a bridge at a future date if they so wish.

liamog

D15er wrote: »

That is exactly what they did. Scroll up for details.

Ok so, by complete coincidence (and not a process of pre-planning consultation) two independent land owners happened to leave a bridge sized gap in their own development plans despite at no other point between the Porterstown Bridge and the Castleknock Station bridge their being any similar shaped gaps.

What's evening more fortuitous about this coincidence is that they happen to be on opposite sides of the railway. Irish Rail should be playing the lotto with luck like that.

liamog

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I apologise for making that assumption, I based it entirely on the character of the streets in question, regardless of it being planned that way they are remarkably well suited for such a scheme, although I fully grasp why residents would be incensed if it was supposed to be a landscaped communal space.

It's an unfortunate feature of modern development, whenever you see long strips of linear landscaped ground it's always a sign that their is a longer term plan in place. You can see similar near Littlepace, the single carriageway Ongar distributor road has a linear section of green space that is the right size to widen the road. What should really happen is that local development plans should call out the reservation for it's future use instead of hiding it.

riddlinrussell

liamog wrote: »

Ok so, by complete coincidence (and not a process of pre-planning consultation) two independent land owners happened to leave a bridge sized gap in their own development plans despite at no other point between the Porterstown Bridge and the Castleknock Station bridge their being any similar shaped gaps.

What's evening more fortuitous about this coincidence is that they happen to be on opposite sides of the railway. Irish Rail should be playing the lotto with luck like that.

I think you'd have to dig into council zoning from 20 odd years ago to find the actual answer, but it sounds like the council insisted it be kept clear for a community space.

I'm sorry I brought it up to be honest, I don't know what the councils plans were 20 years ago and I haven't got a dog in the fight.

I'd say the Dart+ project is too valuable to let it be held up by this bridge, kill the road bridge and plough on with everything else, with an option for a bridge there at a later date if the public demand it.

D15er

liamog wrote: »

Ok so, by complete coincidence (and not a process of pre-planning consultation) two independent land owners happened to leave a bridge sized gap in their own development plans despite at no other point between the Porterstown Bridge and the Castleknock Station bridge their being any similar shaped gaps.

What's evening more fortuitous about this coincidence is that they happen to be on opposite sides of the railway. Irish Rail should be playing the lotto with luck like that.

I don't know how to respond to that. You have the facts, you can choose to accept them or not.

IE 222

D15er wrote: »

I didn't say they pulled it out of their arse.

They pulled it out of a drawer where it had been sitting since 2011.

But the suggestion was that the land had always been earmarked for this bridge. That is not true.

And what was the purpose of the other 6 options studied and examined by other organisations.

IE 222

liamog wrote: »

It's not complete nonsense, it was evaluated as one of the options, it didn't even make it to round 2 of the preliminary route options.
4 options made it to phase 2, Option 1, 3, 4 and 6



https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/8b669bab-7b1c-4ef6-9667-d2494faae813/Preliminary-Options-Selection-Report_Main-Report.pdf

I think that could of been for the location of the new bridge. I would of thought the locals are suggesting adding the drop lock to keep the current routing. Either way it would be a colossal cost.

IE 222

https://www.riverwoodres.com/category/planning/#

Anything but a fair and balanced provider of information. I can only imagine the number of submissions they have unaffected people making. Sounds like there against any crossing closures or replacements and of the opinion IE need to reduce the number of closures and duration.

Fiddle Castro

IE 222 wrote: »

https://www.riverwoodres.com/category/planning/#

Anything but a fair and balanced provider of information. I can only imagine the number of submissions they have unaffected people making. Sounds like there against any crossing closures or replacements and of the opinion IE need to reduce the number of closures and duration.

They are against closing the level crossing according to their leaflet.

https://www.riverwoodres.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/STOP_THE_BRIDGE-2pp.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1fCI27xGUfwqqZAaPHXrNUpLHvXsmmKa7oecUfZZFj7UfezUCcYk7Ryz4

Fiddle Castro

Fiddle Castro wrote: »

They are against closing the level crossing according to their leaflet.

https://www.riverwoodres.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/STOP_THE_BRIDGE-2pp.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1fCI27xGUfwqqZAaPHXrNUpLHvXsmmKa7oecUfZZFj7UfezUCcYk7Ryz4

https://www.riverwoodres.com/proposed-bridge/tips-and-ideas-to-help-with-your-submission/

https://www.riverwoodres.com/proposed-bridge/submissions-about-riverwood-bridge/

Zebra3

Fiddle Castro wrote: »

https://www.riverwoodres.com/proposed-bridge/tips-and-ideas-to-help-with-your-submission/

https://www.riverwoodres.com/proposed-bridge/submissions-about-riverwood-bridge/

Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour
A cul-de-sac at Coolmine train station will introduce a risk of antisocial behaviour as there will be a lack of passing vehicular traffic.

The crime and anti-social levels must be really bad at the nearby canal greenway without any passing vehicular traffic.

riddlinrussell

Zebra3 wrote: »

The crime and anti-social levels must be really bad at the nearby canal greenway without any passing vehicular traffic.

Passing 'Traffic' may impact on anti-social behaviour, but not specifically 'vehicular' traffic.

Given there will be a Pedestrian/Cycle bridge here there will be passing traffic?

Maybe AGS can promise there will be a cycling patrol unit around the area to discourage anti-social behaviour.

Zebra3

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Passing 'Traffic' may impact on anti-social behaviour, but not specifically 'vehicular' traffic.

Campaigners' claim, not mine.

riddlinrussell

Zebra3 wrote: »

Campaigners' claim, not mine.

I know... anyway, is there any additional news on the project as a whole or is the scheme now entirely dedicated to the Coolmine level crossing? :P